Property Says No: Relational (In)Equality, Encampments, and Property Rights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For around two decades, if not longer, Canada has seen a number of cases dealing with tent encampments, typically, but not always, located in public parks. Often these decisions arise out of municipalities seeking interlocutory or interim injunctions against the tent encampments. Property and property rights have a significant role to play in these decisions as the alleged harm to property and property rights tends to be determinative of the matter. In this article I seek to explore why it is that these decisions are showing property rights more respect than the rights of those within tent encampments. I argue, that contrary to recent theoretical arguments, property does not reflect relational justice nor respect for individuals as individuals. Instead, property requires respect for property rights because of the fact that property is a communal endeavour. Thus, the question should not be whether these tent encampments are causing property rights irreparable harm but whether the legal treatment of these tent encampments and their residents reflect the broader community in which they exist.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.057 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".